If Trump is guilty of inciting a riot it would be easy for USMB Democrats to prove it

[Blackrook]

If Trump is guilty of inciting a riot it would be easy for USMB Democrats to prove it

So, prove it.

they are

how can you not be aware?

Are you asleep?

I have asked repeatedly for USMB Democrats to provide proof Trump incited the riot and despite my repeated requests, they have refused.

The logical conclusion is that the evidence doesn't exist. Trump never incited a riot.

 

[bodecea]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

Congressional Democrats today proved that Trump is guilty of inciting a riot.

Please explain how they did that with specific citations.

Go fuck yourself. We're not required to act as your personal slaves. Watch the fucking coverage, fool

Note that Dragonlady is refusing to prove that Trump incited the riot.

The reason she refuses is that no such evidence exists.

The House managers are doing a wonderful time proving that trump incited the insurrection. We know those of you who have sold your souls to Lard trump won't pay attention to facts.

 

[Lastamender]

 

[noonereal]

If Trump is guilty of inciting a riot it would be easy for USMB Democrats to prove it

So, prove it.

they are

how can you not be aware?

Are you asleep?

I have asked repeatedly for USMB Democrats to provide proof Trump incited the riot and despite my repeated requests, they have refused.

The logical conclusion is that the evidence doesn't exist. Trump never incited a riot.

hey, horse, look! Water!

you are a dumb shit

 

[colfax_m]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

 

[Lastamender]

Elisa Martinez

@elisa1121

More “irregularities.” Perdue originally had 774,723 votes. A few moments later, on live TV his total drops to 742,323.



They defrauded the Republicans in that election too. Votes are never subtracted unless they are illegal. During the actual election is kind of soon to tell. Another thing your eyes can see.

 

[Lastamender]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

If it were not for Trump there would be no fraud which is why the protestors were there.

 

[Blackrook]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

 

[Blackrook]

Lakhota thinks a logical explanation of the law is funny.

 

[Lakhota]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

 

[Blackrook]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

The Democrats are holding an impeachment trial that violates the Constitution.

For example, the person on trial is not the President.

For example, the Chief Justice is not presiding.

The term "kangaroo court" is used to describe this type of proceeding.

 

[Lastamender]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

 

[Lakhota]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

It's sadly funny just how dumb and uninformed you Trump NaziCons are. Everything that is taking place is 100% legal and in accordance with our Constitution, laws, and precedents.

 

[Blackrook]

Lakhota was the person who urged Democrats to vote for Biden even though everyone knew he was the worst candidate possible.

 

[Blackrook]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

It's sadly funny just how dumb and uninformed you Trump NaziCons are. Everything that is taking place is 100% legal and in accordance with our Constitution, laws, and precedents.

The Chief Justice disagrees with you. He will not participate in a kangaroo court proceeding.

 

[Lakhota]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

It's sadly funny just how dumb and uninformed you Trump NaziCons are. Everything that is taking place is 100% legal and in accordance with our Constitution, laws, and precedents.

The Chief Justice disagrees with you. He will not participate in a kangaroo court proceeding.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim.

 

[Lakhota]

Lakhota was the person who urged Democrats to vote for Biden even though everyone knew he was the worst candidate possible.

I've been trying to tolerate your ignorant flaming and trolling - but I've had enough. I'm placing you on permanent ignore. Bye...

 

[Blackrook]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

Funny. Impeachment is not a "criminal" process - it's a "political" process in accordance with the Constitution.

If it was according to the Constitution Trump would still be in office.

It's sadly funny just how dumb and uninformed you Trump NaziCons are. Everything that is taking place is 100% legal and in accordance with our Constitution, laws, and precedents.

The Chief Justice disagrees with you. He will not participate in a kangaroo court proceeding.

Please provide "credible" proof of your claim.

Not a problem:

Senator Leahy, not chief justice, to preside over Trump's second impeachment trial

When former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial opens on Tuesday, presiding over it will not be U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts, who oversaw Trump's first trial, but a Democratic senator who will also get a say in the verdict.

www.reuters.com

 

[Blackrook]

Now it's your turn, Lakhota. Provide evidence that Trump incited the riot.

 

[colfax_m]

So, prove it.

Don't show me the heavily edited video the Democrats presented.

I want to see evidence that Trump made a statement that incited a riot.

Declaring the election was stolen is not proof Trump incited a riot.

If it weren’t for Trump, there would have been no riot. Everyone agrees.

"But for" causation is not enough to convict someone of breaking the law.

Otherwise, we'd all be criminals.

Consider this:

I hail a taxi cab and it stops at the curb to pick me up.

I tell the driver where I want him to go and the driver pulls away from the curb and hits a pedestrian.

"But for" me hailing the cab and telling the driver where I want him to go, the pedestrian would not have been hit by the taxi.

Should the pedestrian be allowed to hold me legally liable for his injuries?

A good analogy, however hitting a pedestrian is an unforeseen consequence.

The riot was not an unforeseen consequence or Trump’s rhetoric.

I don’t think Trump is a criminal, but his actions were so recklessly irresponsible I think he should be forbidden from holding public office again which is the point of the impeachment.